Friday, August 12, 2011

I live in Canada where owning a firearm is not just problematic, but akin to signing a good part of your citizenship and rights away.

The majority of people up here are anxious about guns and firearm ownership. I think around 2/3 support strict gun control. It’s tough enough making the argument for firearm ownership here but almost impossible when it comes to assault weapons. People are really scared of assault weapons eg AK-47s. They seem to think almost magically about them as though AKs and similar rifles will go off on a rampage all on their own without human action.

Can you give me a couple of the most popular arguments U.S. gun rights folks use for AKs and/or links to those arguments?

Let’s talk about the reasons why some people want AK47 banned.

Is it the name? Doubtful, as the same people would like to ban AK74, AR15, Uzi and pretty much any other modern gun they can name.

Is it the caliber? Probably not, as the haters of AK and SKS don’t notice Savage or CS bolt actions in 7.62×39.

Is it the looks, the pistol grip? No, as the same people object to AK47 in bullpup or thumbhole stocks.

The long stroke gas piston and rotating bolt? Don’t make me laugh. They don’t get that deep in the technical details.

They hate AK47 for the same reason they hate FN FNC, Steyr AUG, Keltec KSG, American 180 and every other gun that is either effective for self-defense or looks effective. At the end of the day, it comes down to the unwillingness to allow others effective tools for defense from man, beast or mob.

The discussion shouldn’t be about AK47 or AK74 or Sharp Stick Mk1 Mod0. It should be about the right of the smallest minority, the individual, to self-determination and self-protection. The right of that one person should not be abrogated on the account of any number of scoundrels misusing similar tools. That would be like disarming the 1941 American Army because Japanese and German armies used their weapons for evil and therefore nobody should have dangerous weapons. Just because Joe Thug or G-Man Jack use an AK47 or any other weapon is no reason to deprive Smiley Suzy and Friendly Fred of theirs…in fact, the misuse of force by criminals and governments is the most compelling reason, far more compelling than sport or hunting, for lawful civilians to stay well armed and trained. Whether they choose AK47 or any other weapon.

With London succumbing to looters and muggers, it’s time to ask what happened to the once-manly English people. The August 9 issue of the Daily Mail, for example, includes a photo of a young man taking off his pants on the street as an impatient looter waits with the emasculated Briton’s sneakers and shirt already in his hands. Luckily the feeble Englishman chooses boxers over briefs, but I can’t help wondering if men such as T. E. Lawrence, Winston Churchill, or Lord Acton could have stomached the state of manliness in this generation of Englishmen.

Consider that this latest explosion of looting, robbing, and burning began in Tottenham, a dicey corner of north London, after police shot and killed a 29-year-old Tottenham resident named Mark Duggan. As typically happens, two competing personality profiles of Duggan are being told, depending on the politics of the teller; some say Duggan was a hardened drug dealer, others say he was a beloved family man. What we do know is that police pulled over a taxi in which Duggan was a passenger. Police say they heard a gun fired, which prompted them to shoot and kill Duggan.

The facts of this incident may be in dispute, but the unmanly actions of Tottenham’s gangster youth are not. In retaliation for Duggan’s death (or using it as an excuse for mayhem), they’ve burned autos, looted stores, and mugged people along Tottenham’s High Road and around parts of London. This reaction says something horrific about the culture in these neighborhoods, just as much as the 1992 Los Angeles Riots displayed that all wasn’t right with the culture in the poorer neighborhoods of Los Angeles.

For context, consider the “Tottenham Outrage” of 1909. Two men in Tottenham, armed with semi-automatic handguns, attempted to rob a payroll truck, but the guards resisted. After one robber fired his gun, police came running. The robbers fled on foot. The chase lasted two hours and covered about six miles as other officers and armed civilians pursued and engaged the robbers. One of the thieves committed suicide and the other later died in surgery. One officer and one civilian also were killed. The bravery of the officers and civilians prompted the creation of the Kings Police Medal and the funeral processions for the slain officer the civilian passed through streets lined with mournful Londoners. Those weren’t the kind of people who demonize police officers or take off their pants for thieves.

Well, okay, sure, the English people did for too long accept the unmanly ditherings of Neville Chamberlain before World War II. Nevertheless, something has changed in the English character. These aren’t the proud men who once made the whole world look them in the eyes. I submit that one of the chief causes of their now emasculated spirit is the loss of so much of their individual liberty — like a child used to a parent fighting his or her battles, a people dependent on their government for everything cannot take care of themselves and are prone to childish outbursts.

By giving up their natural right to self-defense, for example, England’s law-abiding citizens have become defenseless both physically and psychologically. The loss of their right to self-preservation has created a culture of dependency on government (for protection and so much more) that has helped neuter the English male. This has also prompted some English citizens to blame the police for the crime rates that law enforcement is legally constrained from doing anything practical to fight.

Britain’s licensing of gun owners and the registration of their firearms made it easy for the government to take guns from law-abiding citizens after a mass-murderer in Hungerford killed 16 people in 1987. Within the next decade, British politicians criminalized possession of most handguns — the final deadline for turning them in was Feb. 27, 1998. (This is something liberals would like to do in the U.S., too.) Yet, few have subsequently pointed to the victims of this anti-freedom gun confiscation. The English papers haven’t interviewed victims of rape and other crimes and asked what they might have done if they had the ability to defend themselves from criminals.

The Appeals Court for the 11th circuit ruled today that the individual mandate which is the central clause for the healthcare law pushed through Congress and the Senate by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid last year, violates the Constitution. A three-judge panel decided that “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

The Congress has exceeded its authority granted to it by the Constitution, is the conclusion of the ruling. The three judges expressed their concerns that upholding the individual mandate would allow Congress to introduce other economic laws that will centralize economic power even more in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington.

This decision contradicts the decision of the Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit which declared the individual mandate to be constitutional.

After the passing of the law – which came to be know as “Obamacare” – through secret deals, intimidation of representatives, and other immoral means, the legislative war between the proponents and the opponents of the law that came to be known as “Obamacare” has now become judicial, where judges of different political persuasions issue conflicting decisions. The resolution, apparently, will be in the hands of the Supreme Court. An appeal has already been filed.

Another solution may be in the hands of the next President and Congress after 2012. A repeal of the law would signal that Washington is beginning to realize the necessity of curbing the growing power of the central government. Individual states have already challenged the law, both in courts and through their legislatures.

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation gives us his take on the winners and losers of last night’s debate. (You have to sign up for Tea Party Nation, a social networking site, to see it.) He uses the oportunity to takes some shots at Ron Paul, who he clearly doesn’t like and likely doesn’t understand. Here are some excerpts. My thoughts follow.

Ron Paul. It is hard to lump Ron Paul as a winner or a loser. He did his usual ranting around the stage, like a demented old uncle, talking about militarism and war mongering. He basically said no other nation is a threat to America. He is nuts but he has his following. It does not matter what Ron Paul would say, they would be there to stuff a straw poll for him.

The references to mental illness or dementia or whatever are really getting tired. Perhaps Paul’s critics would actually like to make an intelligent argument instead of resorting to name calling like some playground bully. Paul’s critics need to grow up.

As far as other nations being a threat to America, perhaps Mr. Phillips (no relation as far as I know) could enlighten us with some plausible scenarios whereby America is invaded or otherwise attacked by another nation. Is Russian planning to paratroop in Red Dawn style? Does Canada have its eye on Maine? I anxiously await his reply.

Ron Paul will win the straw poll, as winning straw polls is the only thing Ron Paul does well. By winning the straw poll he will pretty much invalidate it.

Oh really? Well isn’t that convenient? (Said in my best Church Lady imitation.) Phillips has apparently been reading George Will. If you don’t like the results, just dismiss them.

These sort of hand waving dismissals of Paul and his supporters are so 2007. The playing field has changed since then. A lot of people have converted to Paulism and even those who haven’t have been exposed to it enough to realize that it is a substantial position and not just lone eccentricity or flakery. Those who are at all informed, whether they agree or not, understand that the Fed, Gold, Constitutionalism, non-intervention, etc. are all part of an integrated whole. So dismissive unsubstantial rant’s like Phillips’ amount to whistling past the grave yard and cater to the lowest element (those who just don’t get it instead of those who know enough to disagree intelligently) and/or are just mean spirited.

Everyone is familiar with the Justice Department’s corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther case. But the hostility toward race neutral law enforcement at the Civil Rights Division goes well beyond the voting case involving the panthers. Sometimes it involves violence.

I have this piece today discussing statements made by Mark Kappelhoff, chief of the criminal section at DOJ and reported here at Pajamas in the sworn testimony of Christopher Coates. Kappelhoff complained that the voting section’s lawsuits to protect white voters were causing enormous problems with the civil rights groups like the NAACP. A meaningless comment, you might presume? Actually no. Kappelhoff’s shop has jurisdiction over racially motivated violence (which is a federal crime). Guess what Kappelhoff’s criminal section has done about violent racially motivated beatings against whites across the country? Absolutely nothing, and I cover it in this article about the Mob in London, Milwaukee, California (PA) and Akron. Nobody has yet covered this dangerous trend of Holder’s Civil Rights Division using 18 U.S.C. 249 to protect everyone but white victims of violence.

In researching the story, I found this spectacular quote worth mentioning (in context) here:

Perhaps the civilized will outnumber the uncivilized. Or, perhaps the burning and looting provides instead a preview of our future.

Sir Winston Churchill understood this. “Civilization will not last,” he said at the University of Bristol in 1938, “freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before which barbaric and atavistic forces will stand in awe.”

That we have a President that contemptuously expelled this great man’s bust from the Oval Office only increases our task.

Fullerton CA police still insist that they will not release a video showing their officers beat and taser Kelly Thomas, who died days later from his injuries, because they don’t want to influence any potential witnesses. However, they have now admitted that they let the officers involved in that incident review that unreleased video as they wrote their reports about the incident. Not only is this against commonly accepted police practices by giving officers a chance to fix their stories to match the video instead of their own perspectives, it also contradicts the stated reason for not releasing the video since the officers involved are also witnesses. [5] http://ow.ly/1vDUOD

2 Toronto ON cops were charged with assault after a man suffered facial fractures while in their custody after he was arrested over a dispute he had with a parking cop [1] http://ow.ly/1vCvyf

Palo Alto CA settles suit for $35k to a transient who was tasered after officers tricked into leaving his van that he was legally living in by telling him they were towing it. [0] http://ow.ly/1vDSxv

A Toronto ON judge ruled that the only aggression at a G20 protest was perpetrated by police when he dismissed charges against one of several protesters who were tackled and arrested during that protest [0] http://ow.ly/1vDAVS

Monrovia CA police sued by woman claiming she lost job & was left homeless after a cop tackled & falsely arrested her for asking an officer who pulled her over if they could hurry up because she had to deliver blood that she had in her car as part of her job [3] http://ow.ly/1vCS64

Philadelphia PA cop is under investigation on allegations that he sexually assaulted a teen girl in his patrol car, while specifics aren’t being released there appears to be DNA evidence involved. [1] http://ow.ly/1vCRRJ

Lake Charles LA police officer arrested on child pornography charges after a multi-agency search was conducted at his home [0] http://ow.ly/1vDyno

Greenwood IN cop accused of cuffing & threatening man while off duty resigns before his disciplinary hearing [0] http://ow.ly/1vD12p

6 Miami-Dade FL cops & a sgt have been suspended for a month while subject of unspecified probe into on-duty conduct, all of the 6 are in the same unit [3] http://ow.ly/1vDy9a

Finally, 2 Aurora CO cops were charged while driving a patrol car through Wyoming on the way to a fallen officer’s funeral in South Dakota. One was charged with driving under the influence and the other was cited for littering after they were stopped for speeding. [0] http://ow.ly/1vD0XM

THE NEW TARIFF ON DRY GOODS.

Unhappy condition of the Optic Nerve of a Custom House Appraiser who has been counting the Threads in a Square Yard of Fabric to ascertain the duty thereon under the New MORRILL Tariff. The Spots and Webs are well-known Opthalmic Symptoms. It is confidently expected that the unfortunate man will go blind.

Mike Scruggs

Although it is denied by the high priests of politically correct Civil War history, some scholars have ventured to speculate whether the fierce 37-year North-South political battle over import taxes and trade policies could have at last driven seven major cotton-producing states in the South to secede from the Union in 1860 and 1861. While Northern industrialists prospered under high protective tariffs, the South suffered. High tariffs on manufactured goods meant higher costs of living and doing business in the South. It also meant reduced volume and lower prices for cotton and other agricultural exports to Britain

Under the tariff system, the South was paying over 80 percent of all Federal taxes, while almost 80 percent of the taxes collected funded Northern projects. In addition, the Morrill Tariff, passed by the House in May 1860, raised the tariff rates by 67 percent, going from 20 percent to over 36 percent effective in 1861 and advancing to 47 percent within three years, more than doubling the 1860 rate. In addition, tariffs hurt exporters, and the South accounted for nearly 80 percent of the nation’s exports in 1860.

Most American economists today have concluded that protectionism is a policy that may help protected industries for a while, but it hurts everybody else. Protectionism is just another way of redistributing the national income, from consumers, taxpayers, and non-protected businesses to politically connected businesses. It also weakens industries and nations by rewarding political entrepreneurs seeking to advance their business through favorable government legislation and regulation rather than innovative competition. It is a form of government intervention that produces lobbyists and political corruption rather innovation and productive jobs.

A frightening historical example of the general menace of protective tariffs, and especially their impact on exports, was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which was only a little higher than the Morrill Tariff. Smoot-Hawley was undoubtedly responsible for a significant share of the 61 percent drop in exports during 1931. Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Smoot-Hawley was passed but rose to 16.3 percent in 1931 and peaked in 1933 at 25.1 percent.

The Republican platform of 1860 had a strong protectionist plank, and Lincoln made high tariffs his chief campaign issue in 1860. Keeping slavery out of new territories and states was second to high tariffs in priority, and the emancipation of slaves was not in the 1860 Republican platform at all. The new Confederate Constitution outlawed protective tariffs and set a policy course of low tariffs and free trade.

Two days before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, the Charleston Mercury editorialized:

“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.”

At first Northern public opinion as reflected in Northern newspapers of both parties recognized the right of the Southern States to secede and favored peaceful separation.

A November 21, 1860, editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this:

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.”

The New York Times, on March 21, 1861, reflecting the great majority of editorial opinion in the North summarized in an editorial:

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free-trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but also considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness.

On December 10, 1860, the Daily Chicago Times reflected on the ruin and bankruptcy that Southern free trade might bring upon the North:

“Let the South adopt the free-trade system [and the North’s] commerce must be reduced to less than half what it is now…Our labor could not compete…with the labor of Europe [and] a large portion of our shipping interest would pass into the hands of the South.”

On March 12, 1861, the New York Evening Post advocated that the U.S. Navy “abolish all ports of entry” into the South. It seemed to them to be cheaper than the administrative expense of collecting the tariff.59

Also in March of 1861, the North American Review, published in Boston, warned of a Southern Confederacy whose constitution forbade protective tariffs and whose Congress advocated free trade policies.

“Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion…Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely to fire the Southern heart and through which the greatest degree of unananimity can be produced.”

The Newark Daily Advertiser, on April 2, 1861, editorialized that Southern free trade “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North,” and should be stopped by military force.

The Boston Transcript, on March 18, 1861, warned:

“The mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade…The government would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against.”

Debe Bell will probably never forget Thursday, July 21. It was the day she found herself surrounded by people from her local law enforcement agency, and they weren’t there to help.

Unlike John Dollarhite of Nixa, Mo., and several magicians across the country who’ve been hounded and threatened with massive fines by agents from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Bell had to go face to face with her hare-brained local sheriff.

An anonymous Crime Stoppers hotline tip led animal control officers from the Jefferson County (Colo.) Sheriff’s Office to descend upon Bell’s one-acre farm at about 10:30 that morning and, before the day was over, remove nearly 200 rabbits from the property. The 59 year old was being accused of 24 misdemeanor charges of cruelty to animals, including charges that she somehow mistreated two meat rabbits already inside her freezer.More on the hotline later.

Bell had purchased the 1.01-acre property 12 miles north of Denver nearly 40 years earlier with plans to raise as much livestock as she wanted. After all, it was zoned for agricultural purposes (“A-2”) and had everything she needed, including a four-bedroom, tri-level home and a 600-square-foot barn. It looked like a great place to raise a family.

About 15 years later, Bell formed Six Bells Farm Candle Company and Rabbitry as a licensed farm business. Launched as an offshoot of a 4-H project via which she taught her four children how to take care of something other than themselves, it grew into an operation that involved raising more than a dozen varieties of rabbits, primarily for personal meat consumption but also for use in educating children — including kids involved in 4-H — and members of the general public nationwide.

As the years passed, Bell’s expertise and reputation grew alongside her rabbit farm. Not only did she become president of the local Long’s Peak Rabbit Club, but she became known as the go-to “resource person” for 4-H kids in Colorado who were interested in rabbits. Her reputation as a top expert when it comes to understanding and caring for rabbits spread throughout Colorado and across the United States. But that was before the raid.

The Day of the Raid

When Bell, 59, woke to begin that day almost three weeks ago, she had no idea government agents would soon swoop down on her tiny farm and effectively put an end to the pursuit of happiness in which she had been engaged for more than 25 years.

“My neighbor called and said, ‘They’re seizing your animals! You need to get home!’” Bell recalled.

When Bell asked for more details, the neighbor explained that animal control officers and deputies from the sheriff’s office had arrived around 10:30 a.m. and were preparing to seize her rabbits.

About 45 minutes from home, Bell wrapped up her research as quickly as she could and drove home to find out more about who was taking her rabbits and why. She wanted to save the rabbits, each of which she knew by name, breed, tattoo and sex.

Upon arriving home at about 1:40 p.m., she found the animal control officers being unreasonable and milling about on her property — without a search warrant. The “salt in the wound” that the situation had become was the fact that the sheriff’s office officials were accompanied by volunteers from the local branch of the House Rabbit Society — a nationwide group comprised of people who, according to Bell, think rabbits need to be raised like small children.

Much “discussion” took place during the day and, when the animal control officers told Bell she had “too many animals for your zoning,” she begged to differ.

“No, you need to check your zoning regulations,” she told them. “I moved in before you changed the zoning. I can have as many animals as I want. I have more than an acre. I’m zoned A-2.”

Apparently stumped by her knowledge of the local zoning, she said they told her they would set the zoning issue aside.

When she told them her business was a livestock operation, they told her they disagreed and began to push the proverbial envelope.

Bell said one officer told her, “We found a dead rabbit,” and acted as if that was the “nail in the coffin” for his case. She responded bluntly, saying, “Rabbits die” — a fact she learned while growing up in Central Texas, where everybody is aware of that fact.

Abused and neglected from the cradle through adolescence, American children watch and learn. And if their parents finally realize the error of their ways, it is often not until they are living their twilight years in solitude because their children are too busy to visit them. There, alone, they spend their idle final days gazing out at their surroundings through iron bars on their windows, welded on to prevent the next generation of children from blowing their brains out." ~ Andrew Thomas

Max Hastings recently wrote a blistering indictment of the root causes of what we've been witnessing in Great Britain. In what could have been film scenes from Mad Max, many of us recoiled in horror at the images of animal-like (feral) children stalking the streets of London fearlessly assaulting, murdering, and burning.

But Hastings' piece is not only an indictment of Great Britain's society - it is also an indictment upon American society, for we suffer from the same ills. 50 years of the Great Society, of relativism, the new morality, Darwinism, socialism - all brought to us by the smartest people in the room - are now yielding a bumper crop of societal ills. The experts on child-rearing, on government policies, and social engineering have bestowed this upon us. These are the same "experts" who tell us every day how to live our lives, how to vote, how to educate our children, what to eat, what to drive, what to believe about our past, and, soon, when to die. Well, we are now witnessing what these experts and their gods have produced: destruction, chaos, and anarchy. Hastings writes:

"They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others."

And why shouldn't they - since that is what Hollywood and the government has taught them. Yes, Mayberry is no longer the norm from Hollywood. Hollywood prefers South Park. And, of course, socialists in our government encourage class-warfare at every available microphone. This justifies a mentality of - "I can take what you have if you have more than I do." What we're seeing in London is just the logical outcome of socialism and Darwinism. The "fittest" are simply "spreading the wealth around" - among themselves. They've learned well.

"Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community."

Allegiance to a country? You gotta be kiddin' me - sounds like suggesting someone should embrace our equivalent of American Exceptionalism and be proud of their history and culture. That notion is soooo 20th century. No, we are all citizens of the world now. Taking pride in one's own Nation's (especially a Western nation), accomplishments is haughty and outdated.

"Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present."

Why should they care anything about the past? They should hate it since the past was full of nothing but sexists and racist oppressors.

"These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better."

"Make them different"??!! That would damage their self-esteem. No, can't do that.

"So who is to blame? The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass.

The social engineering industry unites to claim that the conventional template of family life is no longer valid."

No further commentary is needed there. Progressive views on the family and raising children are, by every objective statistic available,demonstrably a colossal failure.

"How do you inculcate values in a child whose only role model is footballer Wayne Rooney — a man who is bereft of the most meagre human graces?"

Role models? Aren't role models also heroes? One historian recently opined that "there are no heroes in history." Really? Modernity has taught school children to disdain the heroes many of us looked up to when we were in school. Every mention of a Confederate icon, or even a George Washington, must be accompanied by the obligatory reminder that they were evil slaveowners. Every American patriot must be brought down to the level of moderns, because it is quite evident most moderns don't have the moral aptitude to ascend to theirs. But a world without heroes that leaves a void, a vacuum; which is then filled with celebrity "heroes" who abuse drugs, women, our sensibilities, and themselves - and are paid quite handsomely for it. Of course, it you point that out, you're "judgmental" and "insensitive", blah, blah, blah. And we are then dismayed that children follow suit? The ruling class answers with another government program which will, by design, not solve the problem but create a whole new set of problems and more calls for yet more destructive government intervention.

"A century ago, no child would have dared to use obscene language in class. Today, some use little else. It symbolises their contempt for manners and decency, and is often a foretaste of delinquency."

Obscene language? Nothing is obscene according to the gods of modernity. It's free expression. Had I used obscene language in class when I was in school, I would have been sent home with a note where my mother would have promptly washed my mouth out with soap. Today, I'd be sent to "anger management classes" and my mother would be arrested for child abuse. Contempt for manners and decency? Yes, but where did children learn that? Former high-ranking government officials casually use the "F" word on national television and everyone gets a big ha-ha and yawns. Bloggers who claim to be serious historians lace their posts with profanity and allow others to do so in their comments. Public school teachers publicly use gutter-level bathroom language to insult others - why should we expect children to behave any better that ourselves? Our culture has become coarse, crude, and ugly. And some call that "progress."

Welcome to the brave new world, brought to you by the gods of modernity.

Fortunately, for me, I am going to take some time tomorrow and escape the insanity that is modernity; where intelligent human beings are afraid to admit what they know in their heart is true because it is not politically correct; where men are afraid to admit they'd send their own sons to the battle front before they'd choose their own daughters for that ugly task, afraid to admit they would prefer their daughter have an escort on certain outings and which they would not give any consideration that their son would need an escort on the same outing. Modernity - where nothing is real and adults prefer to live among unrealistic platitudes that defy the laws of science, nature, and common sense. Yes, I'm escaping Never-Never land for a few hours tomorrow. When the sun rises tomorrow morning, it will find me in a very remote hollow deep in the Blue Ridge Mountains with nothing but a metal detector and my back pack as my companions. Alone with God, nature, and reality.

Remembrance

To die for one’s country is not only an act of bravery, it is THE act of bravery. For soldiers, it is just an extension of their military career, a part of their duty. As leaders have asked their soldiers to sacrifice themselves for the good of the society, it is only right for leaders to go through the same motion. They should practice what they have preached.

As war is seen as a noble act, tu sat serves as redemption in case of defeat. It is also a way to tell the enemy: “You might have won the battle/war but you don’t deserve to win because you don’t have the chinh nghia (just cause).” And it is not only just cause: it is the moral belief that the cause they are fighting for deserves their total sacrifice. Continues below

Follow by Email

Counter

Core Creek Militia

==============================My sixth great grandfather, his wife, and five of his six children were killed in battle with the Tuscarora Indians at Core Creek, NC.

The Seven Blackbirds

==============================My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved his unit's flag after being wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He was also at Kingston (Kinston), Wilmington, Charleston, Two Sisters and Augusta. He was at the defeat at Brier Creek and also Bee Creek.

Requiem Aeternam -
Eternal Rest Grant unto Them
==============================
My second great grandfather was killed in action on May 3, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
=============================
My great grandfather and great uncle knew all the men in the "Civil War Requiem" video as they were part of the 53rd NC which was the sole unit defending Fort Mahone. (Fort Mahone was named "Fort Damnation" by the Yankees) *Handpicked men of the 53rd (My great grandfather was one of these) made the final, night assault at Petersburg in an attempt to break Grant's line. This was against Fort Stedman which was a few miles to the slight northeast. They initially succeeded, but reinforcements drove them back. This video is made from photographs which were taken the day after the 53rd evacuated the lines the night before to begin the retreat to Appomattox. I have many more pictures taken by the same photographer, one of these shows a 14 year old boy and the other is the famous picture of the blond, handsome soldier with his musket.
===========================
*General Gordon promised the men a gold medal and 30 days leave if they accomplished their task and many years after the War my great grandfather wrote General Gordon, who was then governor of Georgia about this incident. They exchanged several letters which I have framed. See first link below.
===========================
*The Attack On Fort Stedman
============================
"His Colored Friends"
============================
Lee's Surrender
=============================
My Black NC Kinfolks
============================
Punished For Being Caught!

Great Grandfather Koonce

He was a drummer boy in the WBTS, survived the War only to die a few years later. He was caught in an ice storm on his way home, but instead of seeking shelter, continued on his horse until the end. His clothes had to be cut off and he died a few days later.